by maj » Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:08 pm
Don't like that four pubs article, it presumes lack of shared cultural background. The kids wearing this shit were wearing it 10 years ago when they kicked footballs on the primary school playground, London and the Home Counties were all a wash of sportswear late 90s early 2000's then with lad culture and the emerging distinction of Middle class in the mid 2000s (hipsters, chinos, indie ect) was a reaction against that, subsequent rejection of working class roots, arguably linked to world events and the shift away from Blair government after it appeared to betray everyone. Now in this time of osterity people don't have that same belief that they can drag themselves up, and are becoming more socially aware, as well as other cultural elements from music and film bringing it all together pushing this in the fashion sphere. (Someone takes social sciences, right?)
If this was kids in Eton suddenly donning all this in a vacuum I could see his point, but the fact it's simeotaneous amongst teens up and down the country, combined by teens and other cultural elements pushing it I don't see the argument he wants. While I agree with his argument as a whole when applied to other contexts, using this as the veil seems a bit off, when fashion mega corps start selling it yeah he's got a point (gosha cdg), but teens buying vintage garms they probably owned/ wanted/ knew of at some point anyway? Nah. Also no idea on the race comment? Half this stuff comes from predomantnly White working class and multicultural backgrounds, calling it all "black mans clothes" is sketchy in itself as well as ignorant to the cultural backgrounds of half the things he's listed. Of course there is some exceptions that you can hold to his point, and the gaurdian writing this article probably does seem a little weird considering who they write for, but all in all holding everyone too it seems bare odd.